LeHah
212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
Death said:
Hey, I'm trying to help here, Ok?
Death said:
LeHah said:...Also: Hitler Hitler Hitler.
...Hey, I'm trying to help here, Ok?
...? Being 'generic' means that something can't be invalidated? Find me a fighter pilor or an admiral or a narrator who talks about a smaller fighter force - any of those things would be a more valid source than a bartender (however blessed with 'generalism' they may be).
I really don't think an Epee can be used for strike missions - anti-shipping work, at most (transports, corvettes, etc.)
I don't really remember that debate, but it's fairly easy to prove that reindeer can't fly... all you need to do is cite some sort of expert about their characteristics. "Scientist A says that a reindeer is defined as X".
She sent them after a listening post. We've seen a few sources in the complete WCU that seem to indicate listening posts are unmanned, unarmed (or lightly armed) and pretty much big bullseyes. Again, I ask you to equate killing an armed carrier/escort with a listening post and we'll start taking that claim seriously.sea_monkey said:Colonel Devereaux would seem to disagree.
Wow, you can find something on the internet that agrees with you. I think I can too, following your suggestion. Granted I haven't followed the whole 'negative' argument, but you seem to say above that "you can't prove negatives". Putting in "proving a negative" in Google, all the hits seem to suggest that the statement "you can't prove a negative" is a myth (or at least the most of the hits say its 'difficult', not impossible to prove a negative). I'll throw the most relavent link up (since the author makes a comment about losing an argument ) here.sea_monkey said:That's cause it wasn't really a debate. I said you can't prove negatives and posted a website showing a request to prove a negative is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Ignorance." Just because Scientist A has never seen a reindeer that can fly doesn't mean there isn't a reindeer with exactly the same characteristics that can produce offspring with other "normal" reindeer, that happens to fly. Just because Scientist A has never seen a unicorn does not prove there are no unicorns.
I'm not arguing of course that flying reindeer or unicorns exist, simply that if one wants to assert they exist, the burden of proof is on them, because you can't prove a negative. Go ahead and do a web search of "prove a negative" and see for yourself what people outside of wcnews.com think of your argument.
LeHah said:I'd rather deny you the pleasure of my company.
HammerHead said:My point was that I have some what of a problem with the some what casual use of the words "hitler" and "Natzi" some people make, especialy in places these words do not belong in...
You said prove that bartender is lying, which is impossible since the bartenders in Privateer are generic -- they don't have names and all have the same dialog. It's not like another bartender can say "that guy on New Detroit is full of crap." It's also not necessary to prove that he's lying, he might just not have any idea about what he's talking about. That's a good deal more probable than your assertion that 348 fighters are constantly busy doing something and can never be bothered to defend the space station or the Concordia.